Post navigation

Human Evolution debunked

What separates humans from other organisms, and by how much? Dexterity (opposable thumb), Lifespan, Sociability, Speech, Bipedalism, Hairlessness, Body Size, and Diet, all separate humans from others, but none is more important and more off the chart than our Intelligence. And from these gifts, humans developed even more abilities; some natural like thick fur on demand, flight, excellent sensors, and powerful actuators; while others completely new like handling fire, writing, and life in the outer space.

Humans dominate by far all other organisms and, unlike them, we continue to improve. While we can live everywhere and can survive where no others can, even our partner species (a select group from the beginning) have not progressed one bit despite our best efforts to bring them closer to our level. The capability gap between us and our companion organisms (human intervention aside) increases all the time as our abilities continue to grow, while theirs are perpetually stationary. This is why we no longer need them for their capabilities (transportation, power, security, food gathering and pest control), instead keeping them only as pets and food products.

Is there a credible developmental path from ape to human? Many triggers have been hypothesized: “bipedalism due to climate change”, “aquatic ape hair loss”, “killer ape”, “increased brain size due to better nutrition or fire or language”, etc. However, none of this stands up to scrutiny. Bipedalism is common in animals including all birds, many lizards, rodents and more, yet none of these shows human-comparable intelligence. Venturing into new habitats due or not to climate change is very common for most animal families, yet despite dramatically different lifestyles, members of the same family are more or less equally endowed. The naturally hairless and the language-rich species are not known for superior intelligence. Finally, better nutrition leads invariably to larger populations and sometimes to larger body sizes (within limits), but never to human-level intelligence. And while larger body size generally comes with increased cranial capacity (used as a proxy for intelligence of the fossilized) the relationship between cranial capacity and actual intelligence is tentative at best, especially when comparing across animal families.

What if humans are just a freak accident of evolution? While the most important, intelligence is not the only feature separating humans from apes. Not one but a series of freak accidents would have had to happen on the transition path to human. These accidents would be independent of each other given that bipedalism, hair loss, language and diet do not lead to human-level intelligence as seen, but also given that superior intelligence as in elephants and dolphins does not lead to bipedalism, dexterity, new diet and so on. In a “blind, unguided and purposeless” universe, this unbelievable series of events would not have happened once and only once. Yet this assumed series of unbelievable freak accidents is just a continuation of an even less plausible series including abiogenesis – also a singularity since abiogenesis is not currently observed and since all organisms show commonality (they would be different if product of different abiogenesis episodes), the Big Bang (another singularity), and the “arising” of everything else. This many “freak accidents” do make a pattern …that indicates pure fantasy.

Can “natural selection” explain the humans? No. Both supposed evolutionary branches survived and developed in the same African environment. Why “struggle for survival” did not eliminate either one of the branches has yet to be plausibly explained. In addition, the supposed “common ancestor” is a regular chimp, so no evolution of any kind on that branch of the “common tree”. Why then would the human branch explode with changes? Felines, canines, bovines, and primates ex humans are all more or less the same on all family branches. There is no feline/canine/bovine/etc. human equivalent. No “evolutionary arms race” can possibly account for human brains being able to make sense of the quantum and the cosmos – notions far removed from everyday survival. As far as we know, no other organism has such a removed capability inexplicable on the account of “natural selection”.

The fossil record lends no support for human evolution for several reasons: it is sketchy at best inviting proponents to make whatever desired of it via artistic license, is static hence one must presume evolution to see evolutionary links (the animation movie), and fossils are not positively linked to one another hence likely part of other animation movies altogether. Along the years, we have seen an inflation of hominid “species” as everyone that found a bone or two claimed they discovered a new species. And even after some cleanup, we’re still left with Neanderthals and Denisovans that successfully mated (fertile off-springs) with Sapiens despite being labeled “separate species”.

126 Replies to “Human Evolution debunked”

John Harshman: There must be something in the rules about insulting claims like that.

So, the point is that almost every “new” organ is just a different version of an old organ. The human heart, for example, can be shown through comparative anatomy as having begun as a thickening of the muscles in an arterial wall and having through many intermediate conditions, some of them shown in living organisms.

Yeah, false claims for the missing or reappearing bone out of nowhere…no intermediate links attached… Harashman should have been banned since he became aware of this falsehood… but he is protected by the bullies from the you must believe or else world of science gurus with no evidence…

The most coherent thing about evolution is that it allowed the ability to question its abilities to evolve…That not only puts determinism in shambles. It puts the randomness of the process into even greater state of s…

J-Mac:
The most coherent thing about evolution is that it allowed the ability to question its abilities to evolve…That not only puts determinism in shambles. It puts the randomness of the process into even greater state of s…

The proper thing to do when accused of incoherence is to try harder to explain your point clearly, not to indulge in a new and unrelated bout of incoherence.

Mung: Therefore the appearance of new organs can be swept under the rug because we can explain the appearance of new species without mentioning them. How convenient.

There are entire books on the evolution of various types of organs. They’re just not tied to any particular speciation event. Nothing is being swept under any rugs, and you personal ignorance about the state of the literature is not diagnostic of the state of the field.

Look at the hundreds of species of mice and rats, did new organs form in any of them? Not that I’m aware. How about primates, any new organs in the hundreds of species of primates? Nope. One could go on. It is vastly more likely that speciation happens without any noticeable change in organ function or morphology. In most cases you have to look at much bigger timescales for changes in organ function, organ number, or organ morphology to become noticeable.

Though there are some noticeable differences in organ morphology between humans and our nearest cousins. Look at the lactation organs, breasts. They’re significantly bigger on average, in humans. (Please don’t go stare at boobs in public).

Mung: You would think that the appearance of a new organ would signify a new species. But no.

Who would think that? Certainly not anyone who knows much about speciation or the processes of evolution. Would you care to advance some point of view on the subject of new organs? How do you think they arise?

Because the debate isn’t over whether a new species can arise and evolutionists always try to make it about whether a new species can arise. Even Young Earth Creationists accept that new species can arise.

There is no “debate” going on in this thread. J-mac is saying stupid or incoherent nonsense and he’s being corrected and informed when some sort of topic can be gleamed from his ramblings.

You went and insinuated there’s some sort if issue with the evolution of organs being swept under a rug. Which is bullshit.

and evolutionists always try to make it about whether a new species can arise.

And yet it was J-mac who came up with his intensely stupid doctor’s exam fable where he said:““Am I evolving anything, like a new limb to hold a cellphone while I’m driving?
“Nuh”- he confirmed.
“You have been reading diagnostic imaging pictures for over 35 years and you have never seen any indications of human body evolving new features?”- I asked again”

And“We apparently have 10 billion of species on Earth today. If we X-Ray them all or just the majority of vertebrates, how many of them will be found to be transitioning from one species to another?”.

Even Young Earth Creationists accept that new species can arise.

There are some who claim that they accept that, and then there are ones who vehemently deny it. And then there are the in-betweens who purported to accept speciation, yet when examples of speciation are offered they deny them.

Mung: Even Young Earth Creationists accept that new species can arise.

No, they require speciation at rates beyond anything ever proposed by the reality based community. They accept a caricature of it, being driven by god relentlessly to evolve the Koala bear just in time for eucalyptus to somehow re-evolve after the flood. Why not just create them in situ I wonder. It’s no more unbelievable then anything else in that story.

Simply saying “god did it all” would actually be a more coherent explanation.

So no, YEC’s don’t accept that new species can arise in any way that relates to anything that any evolutionist thinks.

John Harshman: Please quote the bit in that book where the author explains that building trees is an art rather than a science. I will be glad to explain why that isn’t true.

Of course, most DNA is independent of phenotype, because most DNA in most vertebrate genomes doesn’t affect phenotype. The only consistent correlation is with phylogeny.

I don’t have an electronic version of that passage (was an audiobook). Do your own research. Contact the author for instance. One thing is for sure: no matter what phrenology tree you build, it’s predicated on the assumption that “evolution” is true. Therefore, you cannot use whatever tree you build to demonstrate “evolution” …actually you can if simple logic is not your thing.

DNA is independent of phenotype? Go ahead and argue with Bing, Google, etc:
phe·no·type…
“the set of observable characteristics of an individual resulting from the interaction of its genotype with the environment.”
Not necessarily my view.

Nonlin.org: I don’t have an electronic version of that passage (was an audiobook). Do your own research. Contact the author for instance.

So you can’t back up your claim and want me to do it for you? Good try.

One thing is for sure: no matter what phrenology tree you build, it’s predicated on the assumption that “evolution” is true. Therefore, you cannot use whatever tree you build to demonstrate “evolution” …actually you can if simple logic is not your thing.

I don’t think you have any notion of how phylogenetics works. Am I right? Now it isn’t the tree that demonstrates evolution (actually common descent); it’s the hierarchical structure of the data, and one can test for hierarchical structure by showing that the data support one particular tree (or a small set of trees) much better than they do any other. You do understand that this is my field, right?

DNA is independent of phenotype?

No. Most of the genome has nothing to do with phenotype, and the small percent that does (around 10% in humans) also has a lot of neutral variation.

Go ahead and argue with Bing, Google, etc:

I refuse to argue with inanimate entities.

phe·no·type…
“the set of observable characteristics of an individual resulting from the interaction of its genotype with the environment.”
Not necessarily my view.

I agree; you are unlikely to have a coherent view at all. Now I dislike that definition; I don’t think the part about genotype and environment is necessary, though it’s largely true. The important point is that it doesn’t say what you think it says.

John Harshman:
1. So you can’t back up your claim and want me to do it for you? Good try.

One thing is for sure: no matter what phrenology tree you build, it’s predicated on the assumption that “evolution” is true. Therefore, you cannot use whatever tree you build to demonstrate “evolution” …actually you can if simple logic is not your thing.

2. I don’t think you have any notion of how phylogenetics works. Am I right? Now it isn’t the tree that demonstrates evolution (actually common descent); it’s the hierarchical structure of the data, and one can test for hierarchical structure by showing that the data support one particular tree (or a small set of trees) much better than they do any other. You do understand that this is my field, right?

DNA is independent of phenotype?

No. Most of the genome has nothing to do with phenotype, and the small percent that does (around 10% in humans) also has a lot of neutral variation.

Go ahead and argue with Bing, Google, etc:

3. I refuse to argue with inanimate entities.

phe·no·type…
“the set of observable characteristics of an individual resulting from the interaction of its genotype with the environment.”
Not necessarily my view.

4. I agree; you are unlikely to have a coherent view at all. Now I dislike that definition; I don’t think the part about genotype and environment is necessary, though it’s largely true. The important point is that it doesn’t say what you think it says.

Nonlin.org: That’s a lousy excuse. Are you saying you’re not even aware of what’s going on?

I’m quite aware of what’s going on: you can’t back up your claim. Throwing a pile of random references at me won’t do it either.

There are three basic ASSUMPTIONS(!) in cladistics:

a) Any group of organisms are related by descent from a common ancestor.
b) There is a bifurcating pattern of cladogenesis.
c) Change in characteristics occurs in lineages over time.

Now, which one of these ASSUMPTIONS is not also what you’re trying to prove here?

The first two are assumptions of most tree-building algorithms. The third seems unnecessary. My point, which I will try to clarify, is that these assumptions are tested by the data. If the data are not a good fit for the assumptions, there are tests that will tell you that. And if the data fit the assumptions, as is commonly the case, that validates the assumptions.

You seem to think it means that all parts of the genome influence phenotype. It doesn’t say that; they aren’t using genotype to mean “every bit of the genome”. Why should they write it differently? Other people don’t interpret it incorrectly like you do.

John Harshman:
1. I’m quite aware of what’s going on: you can’t back up your claim. Throwing a pile of random references at me won’t do it either.

2. The first two are assumptions of most tree-building algorithms. The third seems unnecessary. My point, which I will try to clarify, is that these assumptions are tested by the data. If the data are not a good fit for the assumptions, there are tests that will tell you that. And if the data fit the assumptions, as is commonly the case, that validates the assumptions.

3. You think search engines are people?

4. You seem to think it means that all parts of the genome influence phenotype. It doesn’t say that; they aren’t using genotype to mean “every bit of the genome”. Why should they write it differently? Other people don’t interpret it incorrectly like you do.

1. The point is clear and now backed with links. I can’t spoon feed you further. Of course you have no interest in acknowledging.

2. No assumption can be tested by the model that uses them. That’s why they’re called ‘assumptions’ and not ‘conclusions’. ‘Curve fitting’ is not ‘hypothesis testing’ – READ about both! So you earn a living with this nonsense but don’t understand the first thing about modeling! WOW!

3. Maybe in the crazy Darwinist world inanimate search engines write definitions and printers write poetry. But not in the real world. Cut your loses.

4. You seem to not understand what I seem to think. Enough with the BS.

Nonlin.org:
2. No assumption can be tested by the model that uses them. That’s why they’re called ‘assumptions’ and not ‘conclusions’. ‘Curve fitting’ is not ‘hypothesis testing’ – READ about both! So you earn a living with this nonsense but don’t understand the first thing about modeling! WOW!

Since the hypothesis is that the data fit a model for common descent, then testing how well the data fit the model is a way to test the hypothesis Nonlin. Sorry. Your mental immaturity doesn’t rule what words mean. It’s not enough to sprout definitions, you have to actually understand, but you’re not trying to understand, you’re just trying to get John to shut up by sneering at him. John might stop trying at some point. Here the news: that won’t mean that you “won.” That won’t mean that you’re any less stupid. You will remain a buffoon with an overinflated ego.

Note to guanoers: before guanoing this, check Nonlin’s tone. If this deserves guanoing, then all of Nonlin’s bullshit deserves guanoing too. The idiot is insulting for no reason other than feeding her ego and feeling victorious. Please let Nonlin have what she deserves.

Better keep quiet if you don’t understand anything about anything… or speak up and demonstrate the level of “intelligence” required to be a jihadi for Darwinism. Sadly, there was no need for confirmation.